F**k you, f**k you, f**k you, f**k you, f**k you, good god, f**k you
Ah, right out of the gate we see the eloquence of the average republican on display
You sound like just an apologist for the racism of Rainier III in denying the throne to his beautiful grandson. Not the mad monarchist, the mad apologist. You are probably some bureaucrat paid by the palace to put out this crap.
Oh probably so yes, but my checks must be getting lost in the mail. It seems odd though that Rainier III would be regarded as a racist for not allowing the half-Black illegitimate son of Albert II to succeed to the throne. The rules of succession are what they are and make no mention of race as a determining factor at all but even more odd considering that the mother of little Alexandre did not even come forward with him until Rainier III departed this life. Not that the facts ever mattered to these sort of people.
MadMonarchist - Why don't you go f**k yourself - and this is not "pending approval"
This was an attempted comment obviously and from yet another juvenile republican who recently discovered the “f word”.
wow,i can't believe that such thoughts as those u put forth still simmer in the hearts of men. while it is very romantic to say the least. the reality of monarchy is just as much populated by psychosis as any other form of human social organization(and from my own perspective even more so). it may be a stable form of slavery. but it makes slaves of the masses of human beings all the same. except its out in the open and self evident. which is its only virtue. but i respect ur honesty about ur desires. and ur right to have them.a freedom only allowed in the very republics u deny.
And I can’t believe there are republicans who would dare use the slavery analogy when it was the very monarchist United Kingdom that led the movement to abolish slavery in the western world. I would return the respect for the honesty of this writer if he/she displayed any, the last line there being an obvious lie. In most monarchies the public has the option to become a republic whereas republics give their people NO option to become a monarchy.
Wow. You're an idiot. Maximilian and Agustin were all for ripping off the Mexican people to live in luxury themselves. It's not "politically correct" to point that out--it's reality.
Maybe in your deluded little head. I mean, “Wow. You’re an idiot.” Both Maximilian and Agustin died with not a penny to their name whereas it was the republican leaders like Santa Anna or later Porfirio Diaz who sailed away to live in luxurious exile on the funds they looted from the Mexican treasury before running away -unlike the two Mexican emperors who bravely chose to die for their principles.
all these people descendant deserve to die, bunch off criminals land robbers f**k them all...i wish they had the same faith as Kaddafi...f**k you stupid f**k who like them
People descendant or people’s descendants? Same faith or same fate? Yeah, nothing “stupid” about this guy. That sentiment just screams brilliance doesn’t it?
You stupid ignorant. GO to hell with you g*dd***d king…
Okay, since you brought up stupidity; “stupid ignorant” is rather redundant, you misspelled “damn” and as this was attached to a post on King Norodom Sihanouk, as he was a Buddhist and I am a Christian we will probably not be going to hell together -at least not the same one. Sorry.
You sad soul…so desperate to bow before the “blue bloods”.
You’re right, it is sad, republics where people bow to red blooded American dynasties like the Kennedy, Bush and Clinton families are oh-so superior.
F**k you 51th state , f**k your whore queen, f**k england , stupid pro.british
Again, the intelligence, reason and eloquence of the republican mind never ceases to amaze me. The more I read, the more I am convinced of the error of my ways. Yes, democracy is the answer, where people like this choose who will have sole control over the nuclear arsenals of the world.
This is a rather longer one, so I have had to break it up to respond appropriately:
WHAT THE F**K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MONARCHY?!?!! How can you agree with monarchist views, that falls off the ‘right’-side spectrum. The original old and new testaments were not written in favor of monarchy, just remember Jesus’ original message: “Love thy neighbor”.
I may be mad but I have a hard time accepting the Biblical opinion of someone who starts a letter by dropping the “f” bomb. And “Love thy neighbor” has nothing to do with government. It has to do with, well, your neighbors. Both Testaments do favor monarchy, loyalty to monarchs being commanded in no uncertain terms on numerous occasions.
Tyrannical circumstances like monarchy does not fall under the definition of prophetic Christianity, unless those holding power are fair to their people. That is not a common of power, a form of government more on the ‘liberal’ side of the spectrum.
“That is not a common of power”? Do you speak English? And Christianity has nothing to do with fairness. It is, in fact, quite an unfair religion -and I thank God for that. Were it anything close to fair none of us would have any chance at all of escaping damnation.
True Marxist Socialism is possibly the best way to run a system of government. Russia, Cuba, Germany, North Korea nor any of those countries were ever truly socialistic. Look it up, the way the powerful ran those countries was not even close to true socialism, they just called it socialism to fool its people.
YES! I LOVE this argument! I haven’t heard this since my university days. Yes, they all got it wrong. Absolutely everyone in the whole of North Korea, East Germany, Cuba and the Soviet Union ALL got it wrong, even after devoting their entire lives in many cases to studying socialism, they ALL got it wrong but YOU, mister internet troll are so smart that you figured out that system that baffled hundreds of millions in countries all over the world. My goodness, the “best way to run a system of government” must be really, really complicated and hard to understand!
Reformed Socialism is actually quite possibly the worlds very best system there is. In true ‘conservative socialism’ people thrive. Medicine and all health expenses are publicly financed and paid for, and wages are high for everyone because the market doesn’t run off of a ‘Plutocraticly Warped Consumerist Market’.
Why don’t you just say that wages are high because of unicorn flatulence and healthcare is financed by Santa Claus? It makes just as much sense as what you actually said.
Instead, almost all the people in a country are working because there are a ton of publicly expensed jobs; and those people are being paid very well-off in order to pay for the cost of living and public expense. We can choose conservative socialism so everyone has a say and we are following the true definition of a democracy, or we can; for some strange reason, switch to monarcy; where no one has a say; and also very likely will corrupted, nazist dictators will hold power…not god.
Again, do you speak English? Did it take all of your mental power to discover the “true” meaning of socialism so that there was no room left to be able to string together a coherent sentence? I would try to respond to that but, seriously, I feel I would need someone to translate it for me first. What I can say is that this is just one more letter from one more person which makes me ever more terrified of democracy and republicanism. Just read the nonsense above and reflect: the fate of your country is in the hands of people just like this. The horror. The horror.
I love to read your answers to all the hate you get...you're my inspiration to carry on, working towards our goal: monarchy! Greetings from Brazil, sorry about my poor english!ReplyDelete
"Conservative Socialism"? xDDDDDReplyDelete
Whats next "Liberal Fascism"Delete
Nah, obviously "Communist Monarchy" or "Free Communism"Delete
One cannot but love the insipidity of these republican arguments. They are the best way to prove the point that the republican form of government has lost all meaning since the demise of the Roman Republic.ReplyDelete
The chap making the "reformed socialism" argument is not necessarily anti-monarchist, right? There are a few socialist countries in Europe that are under monarchies. I favor distributism to socialism or capitalism, but that's a separate issue from monarchy vs. republicanism.ReplyDelete
No, if you read his opening lines he is very, very adamantly anti-monarchist. That said, it is true that most monarchies in Europe are mostly socialist, but that is all the more reason for me to worry about them. Socialism is all about "equality" and I can't see monarchy long-surviving in a country where socialism prevails. Distributism may be a fine system, I couldn't say, I've never heard a consistent definition of it or a clear example of it ever being tried in current circumstances. Some of what I have heard sounds really good but the transition to that system, well, doesn't sound so good.Delete
I am a very traditional minded Catholic and would be a monarchist were it not for some issues I still haven't found answers to. Maybe the Mad Monarchist can help me out. First, I come from a merchant family who, although of some noble origin (Kingdom of León)is mainly self-made after the fall of the Spanish Empire and I cannot help but feel strange defending the "divine rights" of a monarchy that tried hard to keep the American colonies from being self-sufficient. The republics haven't done much better but at least we can choose our governments. Second, it doesn't seem like even the current monarchies are at all interested in having any real power. They'd rather be public figures and do-gooder celebrities. I can agree with monarchism but I still cannot shake off the feeling that the Revolution opened up opportunities for the common folk that maybe they would never have had.ReplyDelete
If you are a very traditional minded Catholic I'm tempted to just say, "because the Pope says so" and see how far that goes. Barring that, rising in society was not impossible before the revolution and the monarchy did not try to keep the colonies from being self-sufficient. Since the revolution, even today, all but 2 or 3 Latin American countries are far from self-sufficient and probably always will be. As for modern monarchs not being interested in having real power, I don't see why you would consider that a bad thing when you think the revolution was a good thing. But, in any event, any look at any of the monarchies in the western world will show that having a monarchy is no block to the common folk having opportunities. They have more than the people who live in a majority of the republics of the world.Delete
First to Jose Pio, I'd say there's a difference between the idea of a "Divine Rights of Monarchy" which is good, and the mistakes of a monarch. The fact remains the ex Spanish colonies have been worse off without the monarchy, and would do well to follow the example of countries like Canada and Australia that have maintained a personal union with Great Britain.ReplyDelete
Secondly to MM I say keep posting your "fan" mail, its great to see how deep under the skin of our opponents your arguments get, and they serve to encourage your fellow monarchists to keep up the good fight. :)
These emails and your responses are just too funny. Keep posting them, they're good for a laugh.ReplyDelete
Yeah, this is the best entertainment ever. It's sad though when you think that these people can actually have a say in the government. We have these people actually having the right to vote, no wonder so many politicians are horribleDelete
Keep up the good work! The almost unquestioned doctrine of "democracy" requires ongoing, articulate challenges such as you provide. Someone important once warned us to beware when all speak well of us...ReplyDelete
I know you find it hard to believe that we are so interested in your "fan" mail, but you just need to step back and view it objectively - it's fun to laugh at idiots! It's the whole premise behind those stupid reality shows, we know it's wrong to laugh at the ignorant, but we just can't stop ourselves sometimes.ReplyDelete
Republicans are the best argument against republics.ReplyDelete
Hey there Mad Monarchist.ReplyDelete
I'd just like to tell you that I am a Radical Leftist and I really enjoy your blog. I agree with you on very little but I find your opinions to be both interesting and consistent. I much prefer your brand of Reactionary Madness to anyone else's, since at least you know what you are talking about and have a sense of humor (a good on I might add.) also we share an interest in flags and history. Just wanted you to know that not every radical who stumbles on your blog is as emotional and incoherent as the comments you just posted.
I agree that all legal decisions should be made irrefutably by one absolute edict. Legislative actions should not be tied for years. Monarchy is far more expedient.ReplyDelete
Reading these again and they're still gold.ReplyDelete